Romantic Relationships Across Boundaries: Global and Comparative Perspectives

This is a repository copy of Romantic relationships across boundaries: global and comparative perspectives.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/148184/

Version: Accepted Version

Article: Moses, J. and Woesthoff, J. (2019) Romantic relationships across boundaries: global and comparative perspectives. The History of the Family, 24 (3). pp. 439-465. ISSN 1081-602X https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602X.2019.1634120

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in The History of the Family on 19/08/2019, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1081602X.2019.1634120

Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item.

Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

[email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/

Romantic Relationships across Boundaries: Global and Comparative Perspectives

Introduction to the special issue on “Romantic Relationships across Boundaries: Global and Comparative Perspectives”, The History of the Family

Julia Moses, Department of History, University of Sheffield / Institute of Sociology, University of Göttingen

Julia Woesthoff, Department of History, DePaul University

In response to the mass globalization of the twenty-first century and associated migration, a recent boom in social-scientific research has analyzed various manifestations of “binational”i, interreligious and interracial romantic relationships in the present and recent past. This special issue, which builds on a panel of the 2018 European Social Science History Conference on intermarriage, seeks to historicize this research by drawing on key case studies from around the world and across time and building on relevant historiography and theoretical literature. It seeks to chart how intermarriage and other forms of interracial, binational and interreligious romantic relationships took shape: who participated in these relationships? How common were they, and in which circumstances were they practiced (or banned)? With a global, diachronic and interdisciplinary perspective, we also aim to question some of the categories behind relationships of various kinds – whether intermarriage, interracial, interreligious or binational unions. Central to these questions, we argue, is the issue of boundary formation. Here, we draw on social-scientific research that has emphasized multiple boundaries involved in the creation of identity and groups

(for an overview, see Lamont and Molnár, 2002). We also highlight the intersectionality of those boundaries, meaning that notions about ethnicity, religion, gender and social class often overlap and intersect in various ways when it comes to relationships (Anthias, Cain and Yuval-Davis,

1992; Collins, 1998; see also McClintock, 1995). As Beate Collet has recently suggested,

“conjugal mixedness” is perhaps a more accurate form of words to discuss intermarriage (and, by implication, other kinds of romantic relationships) because it denotes the complexity of identities involved in the making and lived experiences of these relationships (Collet, 2015). Contributions to this collection tap a range of questions related to these issues, such as how did geographical boundaries – for example, across national lines, distinctions between colonies and metropoles or metaphors of the “East” and the “West” – shape the treatment of intermarriage? What role have social and symbolic boundaries, such as presumed racial, confessional or socio-economic divides, played in relationships? To what extent and in which ways were those boundaries blurred in the eyes of contemporaries? How have bureaucracies and the law contributed to the creation of boundaries preventing romantic unions? Not least, what can we learn about relationships in the past by crossing our own disciplinary boundaries today? Romantic relationships, we suggest, provided a key test case for boundary crossings because they brought into stark relief assumptions not only about community and assimilation, but also about the sanctity of the intimate sphere of love and family.

These assumptions could be found in different societies around the world, and across time, as the contributions to this collection show. The emphasis here is especially on the period between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, which were a flashpoint for considerations about the relationship between race, culture and family formation. This period witnessed the dramatic turn of states and laws around the world to a focus on regulating the family, as marriage and the family came under the aegis of state constitutions and away from the sole authority of religious bodies

(Moses, 2017; Cott, 2000). In parallel, the “first age of globalization”ii at the turn of the twentieth century saw new cultural encounters take form, forged through the expansion of European empires,

a spike in global economic migration facilitated by new transportation technologies and the rise of mass communication through daily newspapers and the telegraph (Osterhammel, 2014;

Osterhammel and Petterson, 2005; Bayly, 2004). As a result, kinship networks were stretched across oceans, from metropoles to colonies and from countries exporting workers to growing economies searching for labour from abroad (Kok, 2010). And, citizenship, symbolized by the passport, came to be defined, reified and problematized in new ways, with major implications for thinking about national belonging and the unity of the family (Fahrmeir, 2007; Torpey, 2000;

Bredbenner, 1998). At the same time, the growth of anthropology and related social sciences as disciplines contributed to the problematization of race, culture and cultural difference (Pels and

Salemink, 1999; Penny and Bunzl, 2003; Tilley and Gordon, 2007; Marchand, 2009; Conklin,

2013). These encounters came to a head in the First and Second World Wars, which witnessed a new era of nationalism across the world alongside a call to return to the home and family as a safeguard against the uncertainties of a world at war and faced by severe economic fluctuations

(May, 1988; Harsch, 2007; Beaumont, 2013; Hagemann and Michele, 2014).iii After the Second

World War, a new era of global connections reshaped family relations yet again. Labour shortages in Europe meant the influx of workers from outside Europe, resulting in renewed outcry about intermarriage. And, many of these immigrants came from former European colonies, which highlighted tensions about racial, national and religious difference related to boundary-crossing relationships (for example, Woesthoff, 2017).

Throughout this period, therefore, crossing boundaries for romantic relationships often proved problematic for mixed couples and their families. These unions almost universally evoked anxieties, criticism, and efforts to prevent them, though how these processes were problematized varied over time and at specific junctures. The articles in this collection are by no means an

exhaustive exploration of the longstanding and wide-ranging issues in the global history of boundary-crossing relationships. The contributions are nevertheless able to offer insights into a number of different countries and continents, utilizing diverse archives, sources and approaches.

They illuminate how historical actors and institutions defined, challenged, and negotiated belonging in a variety of contexts. With its exclusive focus on what contemporaries perceived as

“mixed” unions, this special issue makes possible a sustained exploration of the various histories of these relationships, enabling us to highlight the remarkable commonalities between them across time and space without losing sight of national and cultural specificities. In short, it shows how romantic relationships served an essential function in various societies in the foundation and perpetuation of cultural as well as national unity and stability. By definition, mixed couples as well as the families they created defied adherence to established norms on which national and cultural unity were based. In the process, they revealed the tenuous and at times contradictory character of the seemingly self-evident categories on which ideas of belonging, identity and order were built and social boundaries maintained.

In addressing these issues, we emphasize the complex interplay between perceptions of relationships, the processes through which they became subject to regulation – whether informally through local communities or formally through the law and the state, and the participation of individuals – as well as their families and members of the local communities – in shaping these unions. In doing so, we build on a rich body of social-scientific and historical scholarship on intermarriage and related romantic relationships that has gained momentum especially over the last three decades. While social-scientific studies have focused primarily on process-oriented questions of assimilation and integration, historical work in this area has broadly been concerned with issues of perception and regulation related to specific kinds of relationships, in particular,

those involving empire and colonies, religious difference, and racial miscegenation, that is, the mixing of different ethnicities. Meanwhile, a separate but related strand of historiography has focused on questions of endogamy – marrying within one’s group – and exogamy – intermarriage.

These bodies of literature have rarely been brought into conversation, or pushed geographical, disciplinary or chronological borders, as we seek to do in this special issue.iv In the following, therefore, we outline the contours of a research agenda on intimate relationships that branches out from this important earlier work. The first three sections introduce key themes highlighted in existing scholarship in this area. The next part, providing an overview of the contributions to this volume, suggests what can be gained by focusing on the mechanisms of boundary formation and crossing involved in these unions, through systematically exploring questions about perceptions, processes and the experiences of those involved. In the final section, we suggest how this approach to analyzing relationships can deepen our understanding of the history of the family and gender history more broadly. In doing so, we point to potential future avenues of research related to this subject.

Relationships, Past and Present: Tropes of Exclusion, Mixing and Assimilation

Since the 1990s, a new wave of research on relationships has attracted historians and social scientists, including sociologists, anthropologists and socio-legal scholars, alike.v Much of this research has focused, in various ways, on questions of assimilation, integration and cultural (as well as racial, ethno-linguistic and religious) mixing. Some of this work has cast the net broadly, moving beyond romantic partnerships to consider “interracial intimacies” more generally, including through adoption. Work in this area has been particularly prevalent for the United States,

both as an outgrowth of interest in multiculturalism and as the continuation of scholarly interest in slavery, black-white segregation and their legacies (for example, Kennedy, 2003; Smith and

Hattery, 2009).vi Social-scientific studies have also been especially concerned with the connection between interethnic marriage and integration of various ethnic groups around the world, for example, in contemporary Australia and Indonesia (Utomo, 2019; Childs, 2019; Song, 2009). As

Sarah Carol has argued, drawing on earlier work of Milton Gordon and others, “Intermarriage lies at the heart of social integration, as group boundaries are highest for intimate relationships such as intermarriages and are regarded as the final stage of the integration process” (Carol, 2016a; see also Carol, 2016b; Gordon, 1964).

An assumption underpinning some of this work has been a belief in “assortative mating”: that individuals choose to pair with people from similar backgrounds following what some have identified as homogamy (literally, same-marriage) or endogamy (in-marriage). As a consequence, a number of studies have focused on partner preferences, including questions about increasing or decreasing social status depending on marital partners, as well as the connection between partner preference and individuals’ choice to adopt the culture of their new home country (Choi and

Tienda, 2017; Carol, 2016a; Hu, 2016; Chen and Takeuchi, 2011; see also Kalmijn, 1998). And, many of the contributions to this literature have suggested a correlation between intermarriage and marital instability to either support or refute claims that people of different cultural, national, religious, or ethnic backgrounds can or cannot maintain successful marital relationships. Recent scholarship has, for example, focused on outcomes for the children born of these unions (Durrant and Gillum, 2018; Kouritizin, 2016; Edwards, 2017; Song, 2010), as well as the likelihood of divorce (Fu and Wolfinger, 2011; Kalmijn, de Graaf and Janssen, 2005). As a study of divorce rates in the Netherlands argues, “in line with homogamy theory, divorce risks are higher for

interethnic couples, in particular if the spouses were born and raised in countries that are culturally distant from each other” (Smith, Maas and Tubergen, 2012). In other words, this literature has linked assimilation with the success of binational, interreligious and interracial romantic relationships and families. That is, when boundaries between romantic partners appear to be minor

– whether ethnic, religious or otherwise – relationships seem to work out.

Meanwhile, work that has focused specifically on binational marriage has instead emphasized the importance of state boundaries – access to citizenship, permission to migrate, and the rights and status of children and women in these unions (Waldis and Byron, 2006, 8; see also

Charsley, 2013). Following a spate of prominent international cases in the 1980s and 1990s, scholarship in this area has gained traction. Several cases at the European Court of Human Rights

(ECHR) at Strasbourg ruled in favor of the right to family life, which had a direct impact on border- crossing couples. For example, the ECHR ruled that a Turkish father could not be deported after his divorce and the subsequent loss of his residence rights in the Netherlands if his child continued to reside in the Netherlands without him (Schrover, 2009; see also Schrover and Moloney, 2013,

32-3). These debates about binationalism and relationships seemed to be encapsulated in the story of Betty Mahmoody, which was recounted in the 1987 memoir and film Not without my Daughter.

Mahmoody, an American, was compelled by her Iranian husband to remain in Iran with her four- year-old daughter. The case seemed to point to the perils of Western women falling in love with men from other parts of the globe where women’s rights within marriage, and authority over their children, were ostensibly inferior to those in the “West” (Mahmoody and Hoffer, 1988; for a problematization of this narrative, see de Hart, 2001; Scott, 2018). More recently, analysis of binational marriage has also extended to analyses of the citizenship claims of children, including adoptees and those born through assisted reproductive technology, as well as the rights of non-

married binational LGBT couples and couples in which one partner’s immigration status is in question (see, for example, Human Rights Watch, 2006; Cantú, Naples and Vidal-Ortiz, 2009).

Not least, recent research has considered the dynamics of binational unions involving non-Western women in forced marriages, arranged marriages and mail-order bride schemes and has often questioned a commonly held victimhood discourse about these women (on these issues, see for example, Sims, 2013; Neveu Kringelbach, 2016; Fresnoza-Flot and Ricordeau, 2017). While much of this scholarship has considered binational marriage involving Europeans or Americans, a strand of work also considers inhabitants of other regions where binational marriage is a common occurrence (for example, Yang and Lu, 2010; Williams, 2010; Freeman, 2011; Groes and

Fernandez, 2018). Not least, some of this research intersects with the growing field of study on transnational families, in which one spouse or part of a broader family network is located in different countries, which has significant implications for social and political rights as well as familial well-being (for example, Baldassar and Merla, 2014; Kiley and Palenga-Möllenbeck,

2016).

Mounting concern about global migration, therefore, and especially immigration in modern

Europe involving non-Western countries, has informed much of this research on binational and interracial marriages as well as related romantic unions. A legacy of European imperialism has been the mass immigration of formerly colonial subjects into Europe. In France, for example, there were more than 500,000 colonial troops from Africa and Indochina during the First World War, and over 40,000 workers from Indochina, alongside another 80,000 from China, many of whom stayed on after the conflict (Fogarty, 2009, p. 60; Deroo, 2014, p. 136; Blanchard and Deroo, 2014, pp. 299-300). Later, official figures (which do not necessarily represent numbers on the ground) noted 13,517 immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa alone in Paris in 1946, rising to 17,787 in 1962

(Dewitte, 2014, p. 364). Despite the war in Algeria in 1954, Algerian migration to France dramatically increased in the early postwar period, propelled by demands for workers. By 1953, there were more than 220,000 Algerians living in France (Blanchard, Deroo, El Yazami, Fournié,

& Manceron, 2014, pp. 372-6). However, immigration in postwar Europe has been more multifaceted, comprising not only former colonial subjects but also citizens from other parts of

Europe and the world. As Clair Willis notes, the so-called ‘Windrush generation’ in post-1945

Britain ‘comprised not only of people from the Caribbean, but also Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians,

Ukrainians, Italians, Maltese, Cypriots, Indians and Pakistanis, plus the largest immigrant group, the Irish, who alone arrived at a rate of approximately 40,000 every year during the 1950s’ (Willis,

2017, p. 5). Meanwhile, in Germany, the foreign-born population rose from 686,200 in 1960 to

7,334,800 in 2003. Behind this boom was a large wave of postwar immigration of “guestworkers,” among whom the Turks are the most well-known group, whose stay was originally intended to be temporary, even if several million decided to remain permanently and were later joined by their families, alongside large populations from Italy, the Balkans and Eastern Europe, including the

USSR (Mushaben, 2008).

Throughout Europe, these waves of immigration – alongside the most recent influx of millions of asylum seekers and other immigrants, including men, women and children from wartorn Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and North Africa, amongst elsewhere, in the 2010svii – have provoked new questions about the limitations of assimilation and the prospects for relationships that cut across national, racial and religious boundaries (see, for example, Goebel, 2019). Not least, related fears about what some have seen as the potential hypersexuality of foreign – and especially non-Western – men have, in part, driven these debates (for example, Mack, 2017; Partridge, 2012).

In Germany, for example, a moral panic broke out about Middle Eastern and North African men

sexually assaulting women at a New Year’s Eve event on 31 Dec. 2015.viii Indeed, much of this recent research, as well as broader public discourse, on these relationships has focused on non- western migrants (and, particularly Muslim men from Africa and Asia). However, it has not only questioned the ability of these men to assimilate or be “good” partners, but it has often also asked whether their marriages with Westerners could be genuine in the first place. For example, various studies have investigated the use of marriage as a way legally to obtain residency, if not citizenship, in Western countries.ix The issue of so-called sham or green-card marriages (also called marriages of convenience) has recently captured great interest among legal scholars in particular, many of whom see the legal hurdles for immigration through marriage as a form of “moral gatekeeping”

(see., e.g., de Hart, 2006; Messinger, 2012; Neveu Kringelbach, 2013; Pellander, 2014; Wray,

2015). Behind these debates lay the assumption that intermarriages – at least involving individuals from non-Western countries, or rather, perhaps, from less affluent countries in the global South – could not be authentic. Only marriages – and romantic relationships more generally – between individuals who were similar (at least in most ways) could be seen as true partnerships and love matches.

Assimilation, Vulnerability and Race in the Empire and at Home

These tropes about relationships and questions of similarity and difference are hardly new, as a number of historians have pointed out. For example, recent work on the history of intermarriage has demonstrated how government officials worked together with charities and feminist organizations in postwar Germany to dissuade young women from marrying non-western foreign men – and especially Muslims. Concerns about religious difference in the home, alongside

anxieties about polygamy and presumed propensities for domestic violence amongst men from the

Middle East, played into these developments (Woesthoff, 2017; Woesthoff, 2013). And yet, these concerns were not unique to religious minorities or non-Western men. Interwar and postwar

German discussions about black men, whether from Africa or the United States, including the many GIs stationed in Germany after 1945, fueled similar anxieties (Fehrenbach, 2005; Höhn,

2002). Nor were these tropes unique to European metropoles in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. A rich body of work on empire, relationships and sexuality has highlighted related anxieties about various forms of boundary crossing going back at least to the late eighteenth century. Much of this work has focused on understanding the reciprocal connection between colony and metropole, as well as the role of both colonies and metropoles as sites of global interaction. For example, a number of important articles and books have shown how women in interwar Britain became involved with men from British colonies and elsewhere who either passed through or were based in Britain for some time, for example, as dockworkers but also as members of white-collar professions like doctors (for example, Savage, 2008; Tabili, 2005-b; Bland, 2005).

These liaisons resulted in various consequences, from condemnation by peers to the withdrawal of the women’s British citizenship upon marrying foreign nationals (Tabili, 2005-a; for related analysis on France, see Camiscioli, 2009, 129-54; Saada, 2012, 32-4). As Ginger Frost and Julia

Moses show in their contributions to this collection, British and German courts and authorities played key roles in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in attempting to dissuade women living in the metropole from marrying foreign nationals, and, in particular, colonial subjects.

Concerns about loss of citizenship, religious difference involving Islam and especially polygamy were key factors here.

Meanwhile, a number of scholars have highlighted the experiences of intermarriage, concubinage and other romantic relationships between colonizers and colonial subjects abroad. As

Ann Laura Stoler has argued, these unions incited particular alarm because of widely held assumptions that Europeans in the colonies were a “discrete biological and social entity”, with the

“boundaries separating colonizer from colonized… easily drawn” – even if these assumptions did not play out in reality (Stoler, 2002, 42). This strand of research has emphasized the declining acceptance of these relationships over time. For example, in both the British and German Empires, liaisons with colonial subjects were widely accepted into the nineteenth century. In both empires, as in the Dutch East Indies, relationships with locals were often tolerated as a means to pacify

European men posted far from home, but also because “native” women were seen as uniquely able to bear healthy children and maintain a household in colonial settings. These relationships seldom, however, resulted in legal marriages (for example, Stoler, 2002, 47-8; Flüchter, 2014; Ghosh,

2006). Attitudes changed due to a number of factors, including the rise of scientific racism that questioned whether “mixing” with members of seemingly inferior races might degrade those of

“European stock”. As missionaries and European women increasingly settled in the colonies (as mail-order brides, members of government-sponsored settlement programmes, or otherwise), romantic relationships with colonial subjects were further derided and, in the case of Germany, subject to outright bans between 1905 and 1912 (Strobel, 1991; Wildenthal, 2001, 79-130, Zug,

2016, chs. 2-4). Similarly, the Netherlands instituted a ban on intermarriage involving Dutch women and colonial men in 1898; intermarriage between Dutch men and colonial women had been effectively banned much earlier, because European men working in the East Indies were prohibited from returning to the Netherlands with their native wives and children (Stoler, 101-6, 47-8).

Behind these concerns about intermarriage with colonial subjects was widespread anxiety about

assimilation and integration. Would men who intermarried with local women “go native”? And, could “native” women bring up “proper” European children who understood the national customs, religion and language of the colonial metropole?

However, these concerns were held unevenly. In the French, Spanish and British Empires, romantic relationships in the colonies were instead often – but not always – accepted as a means towards improving race relations in general, especially when those relations facilitated trade. For example, to a certain extent, the Spanish colonial expeditions of the sixteenth-century in South

America encouraged intermarriage with local women. On the one hand, without any Spanish women on the ground, Spanish men had few choices in terms of romantic partners on their travels.

On the other, relationships with local women seemed a useful means to gain access to kinship networks, local knowledge and power structures, while also helping to integrate local populations into Spanish customs, language and Christianity (for example: Calloway, 1997, 178-82; Elliott,

2006, 78-87; Barr, 2007, 69-107; Salesa, 2011; Belmessous, 2013, 45-53). As Angela Wanhalla and Kate Stevens show in their contribution to this collection, settlers in colonial southern New

Zealand intermarried with Ngāi Tahu, in part, as a means to gain access to valuable land and protection for shore-whaling. Britain did, however, institute a few, mostly unsuccessful attempts to curb relationships involving colonial officials (Ray, 2015, 102-32; Hyam, 1986), and it proscribed intermarriage during early colonialism in North America. Similarly, the Spanish colonies imported restrictions on “unequal” intermarriages from the metropole. Since social class often intersected with race, in effect, the ban also limited the possibility of interracial marriages

(Botham, 2009, 61). Not least, the French code noir forbade interracial marriage between blacks and whites in its Indian Ocean, Caribbean and American colonies, and it also forbade concubinage between slaves and free people, including former slaves and “freeborn blacks” (Peabody, 2017,

55-6). Indeed, French colonial officials in North America grew increasingly hostile to intermarriage in general over time, even if missionaries encouraged it. Nonetheless, missionaries in various colonial settings often embraced intermarriage, as long as it involved a colonial subject who had converted to Christianity, because it supported their vision of the sanctity of the married family – as opposed to a couple that simply cohabited or had unmarried sexual relations (for example: Bemessous, 2015, 45-53).

However, interracial relationships in colonial settings, regardless of the European empire involved, were almost universally discredited if they involved “white” women and non-Western men, as several contributions to this issue also illustrate. As in the metropole, in the colonies,

European women were seen as vulnerable and potentially incapable of consenting on their own behalf. They seemed to require special protection from non-Western men, who might enter into polygamous unions and mistreat their European lovers and wives. Since European women would lose their original citizenship and ties with their homeland upon marriage to foreign nationals

(including colonial subjects), it would prove especially difficult to assist them. In this context, discussions about colonial subjects often focused on deviant male sexuality, whether through the mistreatment of women or preference for homosexuality (for example: McGrath, 2015, 74-8;

Clancy-Smith, 1998). In any case, if white women did get together with black men, some argued, they were less likely to succeed in having children, since nature worked against such “unnatural” unions, or their children would be inferior because they would mostly take on their father’s characteristics (White, 1999, 98-100).x As in late twentieth- and early twenty-first century debates about “green-card” marriage and “sham” marriages, these earlier imperial discussions stressed the improbability of romantic unions that crossed significant social boundaries.

Relationships and Communities: Race, Religion, Nation, and Power

Considerations about race – and associated questions about access to rights like citizenship and property – thus predominated in considerations about romantic unions within imperial contexts.

The fates of “mixed-race” children of relationships figured largely in contemporary debates, with some sent off to Europe to be educated, while others fought for inheritance and land rights of their white fathers back home, as Wanhalla and Stevens show in this collection (see also, for example,

Ghosh, 2006, 127, 174-9; Livesay, 2018, 392; Reynolds, 2005). Whether someone of “mixed” race could be counted as “European” or “white” was commonly debated, and differed widely even within empires, as Moses shows for children from German colonial Southwest Africa (see also

Saada, 2012). The Spanish Empire, for example, counted numerous categories of race based on different kinds of mixtures, involving members of indigenous groups, former African slaves and

Europeans, and indigenous subjects could even apply to Spanish officials for certificates to prove that they counted as “white” (Loveman, 2014, 61-71). Meanwhile, various understandings of race and levels of acceptance of interracial relationships informed different colonies within the

Portuguese Empire even into the late twentieth century (Mata, 2007). Behind these discussions lay a widely held assumption that cut across national borders that some races were more similar than others, and therefore more suitable for romantic unions. Considerations about miscegenation focused on these concerns, which went back at least to the late eighteenth-century fetish for creating taxonomies of everything from plants to people. By the late nineteenth century, a new term came to encapsulate anxieties about racial mixing: eugenics (for context, see Kevles, 1995;

Bashford and Levine, 2010). For example, Alfred Schultz, a German-American advocate of eugenics, wrote at length about the need to ensure racial purity through endogamous marriage. In

his 1908 Race or Mongrel, he declared “nature suffers no mongrel to live. Read The Origins of

Species by Charles Darwin […] The intermarriage of people of one color with people of another colour always leads to deterioration” (Schultz, 1908, 4, 7). For Schultz and other eugenicists, maintaining racial boundaries through marriage was key to individual and broader communal or national success. Intermarriage, by contrast, would lead to racial extinction.

These views had wide-ranging consequences for relationships in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, in the United States, intermarriage between whites and people descended from African slaves was outlawed in many states, with long-lasting results. Even after the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling Loving v Virginia that ruled state bans on interracial marriage illegal, discrimination against interracial couples in the United States was widespread

(Wallenstein, 2002; Romano, 2003; Pascoe, 2009). Similarly, for the minority population of white settlers in South Africa, intermarriage with blacks was viewed as a potential risk that would lead to the gradual dilution and degeneration of the white race. By 1949, as part of a broader platform of Apartheid politics based on racial segregation, South Africa outlawed black-white intermarriage. Nonetheless, as Johan Fourie and Kris Inwood show in their contribution to this volume, intermarriage rates had already been declining over the preceding decades. When intermarriages did occur, they were often between white men and black women, and social class and aspirations may have played a role in partner choice. In post-independence Jamaica, for example, as Henrice Altink shows in her article in this collection, individuals sought to marry across color lines in order to “go up” a social class. Similarly, in postcolonial South America, marrying according to social class – over and above racial concerns alone – became increasingly important over time (Shumway, 2001).

In Europe and the United States, intermarriage with other “races” was subject to similar debate, dissection and discrimination. For example, several US states imposed intermarriage bans on Chinese immigrants, while civil servants in Germany and the Netherlands attempted to dissuade

German and Dutch women from marrying Chinese citizens, as Christoph Lorke and Betty de Hart show in their articles here. Behind these efforts were widespread concerns that duplicitous Chinese men would take advantage of white women, perhaps by bringing them back to China to live with other wives or concubines (Pascoe, 2009, 80-5). Meanwhile, discourses about black-white interracial marriages sometimes focused on alleged barbarism and the potential for sexual violence perpetrated by black men (see, for example, Hodes, 1997; on broader context, see also Daileader,

2005). These concerns often overlapped and intersected. For example, Utah’s 1888 ban on interracial marriage targeted both “Mongolian[s]” and “Negro[es].” (Pascoe, 2009, 85; for a similar overlap in the UK, see Belchem, 2014, 61-4). It is important to note, however, that the nature of these bans – as well as their timing – varied widely. For example, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island and Ohio overturned their bans on interracial marriage in 1843, 1881 and 1887, respectively, while Louisiana introduced in a new ban in 1894. Oregon’s 1893 ban on intermarriage extended to “Mongolians” alongside blacks, Chinese, Kanakans and Native Americans (Newbeck, 2004, p.

46; Moulton, 2015). In some US states, especially in the new settler societies of the southwest, intermarriage was not only not banned, but it was common practice (see, for example, Acosta,

2016; Pérez, 2018). And, intermarriage with indigenous peoples, while banned in some states, was sometimes embraced as a means to their assimilation, as was also the case in Australia (Ellinghaus,

2006).

This scholarship on cultural diversity, empire and relationships has highlighted the overlap of religious, racial, socio-economic and ethnic identities, often suggesting that “intersectionality”

has resulted in discrimination of various kinds against unions that crossed perceived boundaries.

Meanwhile, an extensive literature has developed in parallel on “mixed marriages” involving

Europeans from different religions. The idea of “mixing” has long been associated with boundary- crossing relationships, as in the case of “mixed marriages” (Mischehen) between different religions described by contemporaries in the German lands and, later, in Imperial and Nazi Germany.

However, the key points of reference in these marriages was often not between members of different religions, but rather of different denominations: Protestants and Catholics (Cristellon,

2016). Marriages between Christians and Jews, while rare, also provoked considerable anxiety – also from members of each confession, who were reluctant to marry out (see, for example: Kaplan,

1991, 85-116; Lowenstein, 2006; van Rahden, 2008, 94-120). These concerns were hardly new, nor were they unique to the German lands; they could be found across Europe going back centuries

(see, for example, Karras, 2012, p. 109-14; French, 2013). Similarly, but on a smaller scale, anxieties about relationships between Muslims and converts from Islam to Christianity (Moriscos) and “old Christians” went back to the middle ages on the Iberian peninsula and in Spain’s New

World colonies, provoking debate about whether to ban these relationships or even encourage them as a means to facilitate assimilation of Spain’s Islamic minority (Cook, 2012, 93).

The tenor of these discussions about interreligious marriage began to shift by the late nineteenth century, in part, as an outgrowth of increasingly racialized thinking and language about

Jews (for general background, Meyer, et al., eds., 1996). By 1935, Jewish-Christian marriages were banned altogether in National Socialist Germany (see, for example: Stoltzfus, 1996; Mouton,

2007; see also Bukey, 2011). As Moses shows in her article, interreligious marriages in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Germany, whether between Christians or between Christians and Jews, provoked considerable debate, not least out of concerns about how the children of these marriages

– seen as the future of the nation – would be raised. In this context, intermarriage not only seemed a problem because of religious difference within the family; it was also a problem because it complicated understandings about the relationship between religion and national identity. Indeed, much of the research on religion and relationships suggests the slippery nature of identity, as ethnic, linguistic and religious identities blended together, especially in the context of growing international migration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see, for example,

McKeown, 2004; Moch, 2007; Goebel & Foote, 2014). It was not a coincidence, for example, that a source of concern about interreligious marriages in Imperial Germany involved ethnically Polish men (even if they were Prussian, or perhaps Austrian or Russian subjects) marrying German women.

Concerns about the relationship between religion, marriage and national identity were, of course, not unique to Germany or to Europe more broadly. They were part and parcel of the experience of nationalism and nation-building between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, as Sinem Adar shows in her contribution to this issue, on the shift from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey, Sunni Islam gained a new pride of place within national consciousness. As a consequence, the earlier Ottoman emphasis on religious diversity, handled through a complex system of personal status law for family matters, declined. In this context, intermarriage between Muslims and Jews, as in the case of Ülkü Adatape and Yeshua

Bensusen in 1962, became the subject of heated public debate. Their marriage proved particularly concerning to commentators because of Adatape’s exalted status as the spiritual daughter of

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who founded the Republic of Turkey. Similarly, as Marie Basile

McDaniel shows in her essay, German immigrants in the colonial United States elided religion and ethno-linguistic identity when considering whether to intermarry with other settlers. These

considerations about the relationship between religion, marriage and national identity in the United

States were deep-seated and would continue to shape discussions on marriage, the family and the law, not only affecting attitudes to intermarriage but also verdicts on broader marital norms, as in the 1878 Supreme Court ruling that banned the Mormon practice of polygamy (Gordon, 2002).

Behind this verdict, as in many of the debates about boundary-crossing relationships, was the widely held belief that marriage reflected communal values; what those values were and how that community identified were open to negotiation and often subject to legislation.

Notions about community – and the various kinds of boundaries that outline it – have thus been key to romantic relationships over time and in various geographical and historical contexts.

Indeed, questions about intermarriage have reached back much earlier than these relatively recent considerations about empire, national identity and ethno-linguistic, racial and religious identities.

Ancient and medieval debates about relationships, especially as they involved the elite and monarchy, focused instead on issues related to kinship and power. Following centuries of debate about reconciling the nuclear family with Christian asceticism (Diefenbach and Signori, 2018), the medieval Catholic Church attempted to ban endogamy – marrying within one’s group. It introduced detailed rules about incest, concubinage, which was sometimes tolerated by elite families who married in order to retain dynasties, and the guiding principle that marriages should be conducted freely between two consenting individuals. However, families often tried to arrange marital alliances in ways that benefited the family at large, for example, through the acquisition of titles, property and power, and this often meant marrying within a rather closed – and sometimes directly related – social circle (Duby, 1978; Molho, 1994; D’Avray, 2015, 64-79; for an alternative perspective, see McDougall, 2013). These views frequently came to a head, as in the case of

Eleanor of Aquitaine, whose union with a close relative was technically illegal under Canon Law,

resulting in the successful annulment of her marriage. For political reasons, she nonetheless went on to marry another close relative directly afterward (D’Avray, 2015, 70). Despite Church rules on endogamy and a broader cultural shift across Europe towards marriage based on love and exogamy, therefore, families and broader communities sometimes continued to eschew intermarriage if it meant a potential loss in social status. For example, Prussia banned relationships involving nobles and individuals of a lower social class. Nonetheless, after about 1750, almost a quarter of noble marriages in Brandenburg included a non-noble woman, perhaps due to motivations about love or access to untitled money (Lukowski, 2003, 160-4). These concerns about endogamy and the maintenance of power cut across class lines. Endogamy could ensure that valued possessions stayed within the family and broader kinship networks, as David Warren Sabean has shown for rural Württemberg in Germany and Adam Kuper has shown for elite families in England in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Sabean, 1998; Kuper, 2009; see also Sabean,

Teuscher and Mathieu, 2007).

These experiences with endogamous marriage were by no means unique to Europe. As

Jack Goody suggests, debates about moving towards an exogamous family model based on intermarriage between different groups were largely confined to Europe from the late middle ages, when the Catholic Church set itself upon reforms in this area.xi To a certain extent, and in various ways, endogamy thrived in the Middle East and elsewhere in this period and beyond, and, in some cases, was shaped by caste systems that simultaneously limited marital choices and ossified power structures within different societies (Goody, 1983; Goody, 1990; Robbins, 2004; Courbage &

Todd, 2011, 26-38).xii Past debates about and experiences with intermarriage and related romantic relationships need to be situated against this broader backdrop of community expectations and formation. Regardless of whether examining Eleanor of Aquitaine’s twelfth-century France or

Ülkü Adatape’s twentieth-century Turkey, these histories all suggest that relationships which cross perceived social boundaries were problematized, especially as they related to questions of power: the power to maintain property and economic status, to maintain one’s group identity – and associated social status, and, in exceptional instances, to maintain one’s title and kingdom.

Maintaining Social Boundaries through Romantic Relationships

As we have seen, scholarship on intermarriage and related romantic relationships has highlighted the intersection of different identities, different kinds of boundaries, and the roles of assimilation, integration and exclusion in either maintaining or eroding those boundaries. Relationships of various kinds have been problematized, banned, avoided – and embraced – across the globe and over time for various reasons throughout history. And, a core underlying aspect of these dynamics has been concerns about power. In this collection, we emphasize three aspects that, we suggest, elucidate especially clearly the mechanisms through which the boundary formation and blurring associated with romantic relationships occurred in various societies at different points in the past.

The first group of articles in this theme issue focuses on questions about perceptions of these unions. How did families, communities and authorities interpret liaisons that appeared to cross boundaries, whether confessional, racial or national? Which assumptions did individuals entering into these relationships bring with them? The second set of articles charts various processes through which these couples came to be regulated, surveilled and, in some instances, banned from coming together in the first place. Which measures – if any – did legislators, government officials and religious authorities take when encountering relationships? Were the children of these unions subject to similar regulations? The final set of articles in this special issue turns our attention to

questions of participation. To what extent did individuals choose to marry across social boundaries, and what motivated them? Not least, how did individuals attempt to get around initiatives aimed at curtailing their relationships? Although we identify each of these aspects separately here, in practice, romantic unions of course proved more complex. Admittedly, many of the articles presented here speak to various aspects of “perception,” “process,” and “participation,” given the centrality of these issues to matters related to mixed unions. Our choice to group the texts in a particular way to elucidate these themes is therefore only one possible means of analysis; readers, no doubt, will find a number of alternative ways to bring the articles into conversation with each other.

The contributions by Julia Moses, Marie McDaniel, and Sinem Adar show how a focus on intermarriage can shed light on community (re)formation by exploring how the politics of difference were reflected in official and communal perceptions of religious, ethno-linguistic, and national belonging. The three articles illuminate how (national) communities in multicultural contexts perceived cultural difference at crucial moments in their (re)generation—diverse as they may be: in the recently formed late-nineteenth century German empire, during the establishment of the German-speaking community in eighteenth-century colonial Pennsylvania, and in the newly constituted Turkish Republic in the early twentieth century. Opening the issue is Julia Moses’s article, providing greater insight not only into the specific context that shaped the history of mixed couples in the German empire but also serving as an introduction to many of the key concepts that help to illuminate how mixed unions, including intermarriage “proved a key site for testing the politics of difference.” As Moses argues, “intermarriage mattered to families and broader communities, including, in certain instances, legislators and government bureaucrats, because it was a pivotal means through which social groups formed, interacted and maintained boundaries.”

Such boundaries were informed by the shifting importance and interconnectedness of “religious, ethno-linguistic, racial, gender and class-based identities.” In the context of the nascent German nation-state grappling with its diverse population, perceptions of cultural difference as embodied in the concept of intermarriage severely tested the unity which the newly established state had outwardly achieved through political unification but was still lacking among its inhabitants. One of the major contributions of this article is the way in which it weaves together the histories of intermarriage in the German metropole as well as the colonies. Industrialization, urbanization, and the population movements that followed in their wake, as well as the introduction of state and national civil laws governing marriage slowly shifted perceptions of interconfessional marriage as transgressive, and made it possible to view it as part of rather than a fundamental challenge to, a unified German national identity. As religion gradually faded as a major marker of difference, race took on growing significance—both in the colonies and the metropole, also because the policies related to intermarriage in either were at odds with each other.

The preoccupation with establishing and preserving German community in the face of growing diversity is also at the center of Marie Basile McDaniel’s article on eighteenth-century pre-revolutionary Pennsylvania, even if the community faced even greater challenges abroad, as it tried to establish itself anew in toto. As McDaniel points out, the drive to do so and to practice cultural boundary maintenance originated with the young members of the German-speaking community themselves; they were not pressured by edicts from their elders or church authorities.

While they often engaged in premarital sexual activity with partners outside their own ethno- linguistic group, surprisingly they mostly married German-language partners from within their own denomination. This happened even though many of these young adults were without strong parental influence in the highly diverse environment of colonial Pennsylvania, and at a time when

marriage also came to be understood as a romantic choice between consenting partners rather than the prerogative of the parents. That environment nevertheless discouraged intermarriage.

Literature on religious courtship and sermons also stressed the importance of spiritual compatibility, without banning out-marriage outright, which bolstered the desire for endogamous marriage. Linguistic, cultural and religious identities were deeply intertwined within the German- speaking community. The slow growth of intermarriage over the course of the eighteenth century suggests that German speakers made a conscious effort to maintain their cultural community through endogamy. As McDaniel argues, it was exactly their “status as minorities [that] was crucial to the preservation of their ethnic identity.”

Sinem Adar’s article on the Turkish Republic explores the processes of nation-building and identity formation through the lens of intermarriage, in the process explaining why membership in the national community was so fraught. Increasing ethnicization of religious identity that had already begun to develop during the Ottoman Empire accelerated in the wake of large-scale demographic shifts and the implementation of the principle of national self- determination in the wake of the First World War. The Treaty of Lausanne, concluded in 1923, reflected these ideas in its focus on the protection of minority rights, attempting to “enforce equality while accommodating difference.” Over the next forty years, perceptions of couples with mixed religious backgrounds proved to be problematic, challenging their membership in the national community because of a constitutive incoherence in the way the state managed religious difference. On the one hand, Sunni Islam was considered essential to Turkish nationhood. On the other hand, marriage and family, understood as central forces of national identity formation, were governed by secular laws embodied in the Swiss Civil Code, which served as a template for the new Turkish Republic. Ethno-religious membership to the Turkish nation was thus at odds with

legal membership (via citizenship) to the Turkish state. Adar presents the controversy surrounding the 1962 marriage between Ülkü Adatape, spiritual daughter of Atatürk, and her Jewish partner

Yeshua Bensusen as a prominent example of this paradox inherent in the state’s governance of religious difference.

The second group of articles in this special issue, by Betty de Hart, Christoph Lorke, and

Ginger Frost, illuminate how particular perceptions of what marriage and family were supposed to look like led states to implement regulatory processes that ostensibly helped to shore up cultural and national unity. As the articles in this group also show, the legal and bureaucratic apparatus set up to define, regulate, and adjudicate ethno-religious aspects of belonging, and to police national boundaries, became more professionalized over time, supported by a variety of groups, including civil registrars, legal professionals, diplomats, politicians, and law-enforcement officials. The three contributions in this section focus on Western European states during the first half of the twentieth century, when colonial holdings were increasingly in flux and authoritarian governments increasingly became the norm. Against this backdrop, they also highlight a time when eugenic thinking and xenophobic nationalism were on the rise in ways that intimately affected mixed couples and their families, as encapsulated in National Socialist crimes against the Jews through insidious mechanisms like miscegenation laws before culminating in the nadir of the Holocaust.

Expanding on this history of mixed unions in the first half of the twentieth century, both Betty de

Hart and Christoph Lorke focus on Dutch and German women respectively who were in relationships with Chinese migrants. Though never prohibited outright, unlike Jewish-gentile unions during the Nazi period, these relationships nevertheless elicited great concern among officials, who were heavily invested in their prevention. Race lay at the heart of justifications for exclusion, with the regulation of Chinese migrants by Dutch authorities during the interwar period

informed by colonial and transnational discourses on the Chinese as a “yellow race”. In this context, intermarriage with white women was considered a racial shame. Christoph Lorke’s work on German-Chinese relationships in the first four decades of the twentieth century shows that they were increasingly viewed as problematic due to a variety of factors, including the marked rise of eugenic thinking and xenophobic nationalism in the interwar era. But, unlike other mixed couples, the Chinese were not systematically excluded during the Nazi era; instead, both formal and informal pressures and official policies came into play.

In response to growing interconnections with other parts of the world, alongside various processes of state-building and modernization, as suggested in Lorke’s as well as Moses’ articles, the bureaucracy surrounding marriage was professionalized, and law on marriage was elaborated.

This development is particularly evident in Ginger Frost’s essay on binational and interracial marriages in Great Britain between 1880 and 1940. As Frost shows, the British government became increasingly invested in monitoring – and preventing – binational marriages, usually as they involved British women and foreign men. However, there was a “lack of consensus even among different government offices on how to respond to British citizens that transgressed acceptable definitions of national belonging”. A number of factors played a role in their considerations, including racial and religious prejudices, ideas about social class and the fact that

British nationality law made women particularly vulnerable in cases of intermarriage with foreigners, since they would lose their British citizenship and associated protections from the

British state. The different configurations in which intermarriages presented themselves, as Frost shows, continually posed challenges about how to approach and regulate them and were informed by different priorities from different state authorities. For example, in 1932, a so-called “Polygamy

Committee” was created to address questions about inheritance for children born of polygamous

unions, which were legal in Britain as long as they had been conducted legally abroad – for example in parts of the Empire or elsewhere. It also sought to address questions about the many international changes to nationality and family law during the interwar period. The committee met only twice, in 1939, and had no lasting impact, in part, due to the misogyny of committee members who refused to address the question of women’s nationality in marriage. Ultimately, due to the lack of consensus about how to proceed on this and other issues related to intermarriage, “mixed race couples had some [if limited] room to maneuver.”

Frost’s article, like Lorke’s and de Hart’s, points to the possibility for negotiation between authorities, the law and individuals involved in these relationships. The final group of articles, by

Henrice Altink, Johan Fourie and Kris Inwood, and Angela Wanhalla and Kate Stevens, shifts our focus further to questions of participation and experience of those involved in relationships. The articles in this section highlight the contested meanings of marriage, family and kinship, such as questions of legitimacy, respectability and authenticity, and they also illuminate the social and cultural practices of mixed couples and families. For example, Henrice Altink examines practices of intraracial marriage between Jamaicans in the twentieth century of African descent who sought to “marry light” – choosing a spouse of a lighter skin tone – as part of broader social aspirations related to class, race and gender. Altink shows how, in Jamaica, like other countries in the

Caribbean and Latin America, discrimination against intraracial marriage was not subject to “de jure discrimination”. Rather, “discrimination tended to take the form of subtle, informal means, ranging from racial jokes to preferential treatment in public places of those with white or light skin.” These practices, in turn, helped to reinforce a kind of “color-class stratification” which meant that Jamaicans of African descent with lighter skin were often seen to be of a higher class, and therefore more valuable as potential marriage partners. These ideas were so prevalent that

children readily internalized them, and they continued to predominate in Jamaica even fifty years after independence.

Fourie and Inwood, like Altink, point to long-standing racial discrimination, intertwined with concerns about social status and class, as factors in individual decisions to intermarry. They attempt to explain the dynamics of interracial marriage in South Africa in the early twentieth century, prior to the 1949 enactment of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, which was part of the broader system of racial segregation instituted under Apartheid. Using a large data set of

23,651 Anglican Church records of weddings in Cape Town, Fourie and Inwood show a precipitous decline in interracial marriage already starting in the 1910s and 1920s. Since the national ban on interracial marriage was not yet in place at the time, they conclude that other factors militated against the practice. One possible explanation, they posit, might be social exchange theory: “because households pool income, status or other such characteristics, the socioeconomic position of one partner influences the well-being of the other, resulting in assortment on income status, or other characteristics” (for background, see Kalmijn, 1998; see also

Becker, 1973). As Fourie and Inwood argue, “if social exchange theory is valid, and a hierarchy of races, with white men at the top and black men at the bottom, were to exist in the eyes of contemporaries, then one would expect that black men would be most likely to enter interracial marriages. This is indeed what we find.” However, by tracing which types of interracial unions did occur – for example, between black husbands and wives with a lighter skin color or between black husbands and white wives, they also show that social exchange theory does not fully account for intermarriage practices in early twentieth-century South Africa. Instead, individual preferences to intermarry proved more complex than seemingly rational choices about “marrying up” or

“down”, and families, broader communities and the changing national political environment all likely played a role in these decisions.

In their article, Wanhalla and Stevens turn our attention from the experiences of individuals choosing to enter into intermarriages to those of the children from such unions. By focusing on land claims investigations in the mid-nineteenth century in southern New Zealand, they are able to tap a rich body of sources from fathers and mixed-race children that reveal fresh insights into ideas about kinship within interracial families. They show how the shore-whaling industry in southern New Zealand brought about “two decades of sustained cross-cultural contact”, resulting in intermarriages between white men and local Ngāi Tahu women. They note that “marriage was mutually beneficial: it stitched whalers into Ngāi Tahu kin networks, and placed them under the protection of a local leader”. “Moreover”, they argue, “marriage and the access to land that it provided was an important factor rooting these men to the southern region once the industry came to an end in the 1850s”. It was precisely those roots that meant that fathers, together with their interracial children, lobbied for their children’s land rights. Not least, couples remained together long after shore whaling had come to an end, indicating that love and comfort, rather than access to resources and protection alone, lay behind these unions.

Gender, Sexuality and the Global:

Future Directions for Research on Relationships across Boundaries

We have sought in this collection to deepen understandings of boundary-crossing relationships by bringing together these diverse strands of research and by highlighting the mechanisms underpinning these unions across the globe and over time. In doing so, however, we have also

aimed to make a contribution to the important broader scholarship on the history of the family.

First, we have sought to shed new light on the comprehensive and well established body of work on the general history of marriage and the family (for example, Shorter, 1976; Burguière, 1996;

Kertzer & Barbagli, 2001; Kertzer & Barbagli, 2002; Kertzer & Barbagli, 2003). With our global and comparative perspective, we have also aimed to contribute to flourishing new research on the global history of marriage (for example, Celello and Kholoussy, 2016; Moses, 2017; McDougall

& Pearsall, 2017; Maynes & Waltner, 2012). Not least, by examining relationships that cross borders, and the concomitant tropes and understandings of gender and sexuality that accompanied those relationships, we have attempted to contribute to the growing and related new field of research on transnational gender history and the transnational history of sexuality (for example,

Meyerowitz, 2009; Wiesner-Hanks, 2011). Future work on relationships might continue to build on – and draw from – these areas of research.

However, there is ample scope for further understanding of the dynamics and nature of boundary-crossing relationships in the past, over time, and around the world. For example, in the

English-speaking world, research on intermarriage is still heavily focused on couples where at least one partner is a citizen of a Western country. While a number of important case studies have highlighted relationships within other regions, more historical research of this kind is warranted.

Moreover, given the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in several countries, and the continued opposition to and illegality of it in many other parts of the world, the history of same- sex romantic unions across various kinds of borders – whether national, racial or otherwise – merits further attention. Parallels with taboos against, efforts to regulate, and experiences with same-sex and transgender relationships – as another form of “boundary crossing” – could be analyzed in future research. Not least, the children of these unions, who have seen more sustained attention

from social scientists focusing on contemporary societies, warrant further historical examination.

Finally, future research on intermarriage and related romantic relationships warrants sustained engagement with some of the new methods and research questions sparked by scholarship in the history of emotions. By continuing to ask new questions, to adopt new methods, and to remain open to new comparisons and connections, we might come to greater understanding about the role of boundaries of various kinds in shaping those relationships that stand at the center of home and family and, in turn, are often seen as the heart of the broader communities in which they are situated.

REFERENCES

Acosta, S. (2016). Sanctioning matrimony: Western expansion and interethnic marriage in the

Arizona borderlands. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Anthias, F., Cain, H., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1992). Racialized boundaries: Race, nation, gender,

colour and class and the anti-racist struggle. London: Routledge.

Baldassar, L., & Merla, L. (2014). Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care:

Understanding mobility and absence in family life. New York, NY: Routledge.

Barr, J. (2007). Peace came in the form of a woman: Indians and Spaniards in the Texas

Borderlands. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Bashford, A., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bayly, C. A. (2004). The birth of the modern world, 1780-1914: Global connections and

comparisons. Oxford: Blackwell.

Beaumont, C. (2013). Housewives and citizens: Domesticity and the women’s movement in

England, 1928-64. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813-46.

Belchem, J. (2014). Before the Windrush: Race relations in 20th-century Liverpool. Liverpool:

Liverpool University Press.

Belmessous, S. (2013). Assimilation and empire: Uniformity in French and British colonies,

1541-1954. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blanchard, P., & Deroo, E. (2014). Control: Paris, a Colonial Capital (1931-1939). In P. Blanchard,

S. Lemaire, N. Bancel, D. R. D. Thomas & A. Pernsteiner (Eds.), Colonial culture in

France since the revolution, (pp. 296-306). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University

Press.

Blanchard, P., Deroo, E., El Yazami, D., Fournié, P., & Manceron, G. (2014). North Africans

settle in the metropole (1946-1961). In P. Blanchard, S. Lemaire, N. Bancel, D. R. D.

Thomas & A. Pernsteiner (Eds.), Colonial culture in France since the revolution, (pp. 372-

9). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Bland, L. (2005). White women and men of colour: Miscegenation fears in Britain after the Great

War. Gender & History, 17(1), 29-61.

Botham, F. (2009). Almighty God created the races: Christianity, interracial marriage, &

American law. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Bredbenner, C. L. (1998). A nationality of her own: Women, marriage, and the law of citizenship.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bukey, E. B. (2011). Jews and intermarriage in Nazi Austria. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Burguière, A. (1996). A history of the family (Vols. 1-2). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.

Calloway, C. G. (1997). New worlds for all: Indians, Europeans and the remaking of early

America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Camiscioli, E. (2009). Reproducing the French race: Immigration, intimacy, and embodiment in

the early twentieth century. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Cantú, L., Naples, N. A., & Vidal-Ortiz, S. (2009). The Sexuality of migration: Border crossings

and Mexican immigrant men. New York: New York University Press.

Carol, S. (2016a). Like will to like? Partner choice among Muslim migrants and natives in Western

Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(2), 261-76.

Carol, S. (2016b). Social integration and intermarriage in Europe: Islam, partner-choices and

parental influence. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.

Celello, C & Kholoussy, C. (Eds.). (2016). Domestic tensions, national anxieties: Global

perspectives on marriage, crisis, and nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Charsley, K. (Ed.) (2013). Transnational marriage: New perspectives from Europe and beyond.

London: Routledge.

Chen, J, & Takeuchi, D. T. (2011). Intermarriage, ethnic identity and perceived social standing

among Asian women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 876-88.

Childs, E. C. (2019). Mixed matters in Australia. Social Identities, 25(3), 424-38.

Choi, K. H., & Tienda, M. (2017). Marriage-market constraints and mate-selection behavior:

Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in intermarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family,

79(2), 301-17.

Clancy-Smith, J. (1998). Islam, gender and identities in the making of French Algeria, 1830-1962.

In J. Clancy-Smith, & F. Gouda (Eds.), Domesticating the empire: Race, gender, and

family life in French and Dutch colonialism (pp. 154-74). Charlottesville: University of

Virginia Press.

Collet, B. (2015). From intermarriage to conjugal mixedness: Theoretical considerations

illustrated by empirical data in France. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science, 662(1), 129-47.

Collins, P. H. (1998). It’s all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation. Hypatia,

13(3), 62-82.

Conklin, A. L. (2013). In the museum of man: Race, anthropology, and empire in France, 1850-

1950. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Cook, K. P. (2012). “Moro de linaje y nación”: Religious identity, race and status in New Granada.

In M-S. Hering Torres, M. E. Martínez, & D. Nirenberg (Eds.), Race and Blood in the

Iberian World (pp. 81-98). Zürich: Lit.

Corbier, Mireille. (1991). Family behavior of the Roman aristocracy, second century B.C.-third

century A.D. (A. Cremin, Trans.). In S. B. Pomeroy (Ed.), Women’s history and ancient

history (pp. 173-96). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Cott, N. F. (2000). Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Courbage, Y., & Todd, E. (2007; 2011). A convergence of civilizations: The transformation of

Muslim societies around the world (G. Holoch, Trans.). New York: Columbia University

Press, 2011.

Cretser, G. A., & Leon, J. J. (1982) Intermarriage in the United States: An overview of theory and

research. In G. A. Cretser & J. J. Leon (Eds.), Intermarriage in the United States (pp. 3-

16). New York: Haworth Press.

Cristellon, C. (2016). Mixed marriages in early modern Europe. In S. Seidel-Menchi (Ed.),

Marriage in Europe, 1400-1800 (pp. 294-317). Toronto: Toronto University Press.

Daileader, C. R. (2005). Racism, misogyny, and the “Othello” myth: Interracial couples from

Shakespeare to Spike Lee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D’Avray, D. L. (2015). Papacy, monarchy and marriage, 860-1600. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. de Hart, B. (2001). Not without my daughter: On parental abduction, Orientalism and maternal

melodrama. European Journal of Women's Studies, 8(1), 51-65. de Hart, B. (Ed). (2006) The marriage of convenience in European immigration law. Special issue

of European Journal of Migration and Law, 8(3-4).

Deroo, E. Dying: The call of the empire (1913-1918). In P. Blanchard, S. Lemaire, N. Bancel, D.

R. D. Thomas & A. Pernsteiner (Eds.), Colonial culture in France since the revolution,

(pp. 132-41). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Dewitte, P. (2014). Immigration and an emerging African elite in the metropole (1946-1961). In

P. Blanchard, S. Lemaire, N. Bancel, D. R. D. Thomas & A. Pernsteiner (Eds.), Colonial

culture in France since the revolution, (pp. 364-71). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana

University Press.

Diefenbach, S., & Signori, G. (2018). “Kinless worlds”? Familienlosigkeit und Asketische Milieus

von der Spätantike bis Zum Spätmittelalter [“Kinless worlds”? Familylessness and the

ascetic milieu from late antiquity to the late middle ages]. Saeculum, 68(2) (2018), 201-12.

Drachsler, J. (1920). Democracy and assimilation: The blending of immigrant heritages in

America. New York: Macmillan.

Duby, G. (1978). Medieval marriage: Two models from twelfth-century France. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Dumănescu, L, Mârza, D. & Eppel, M. (Eds.). (2014). Intermarriage throughout history.

Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Durrant, L., & LeBlanc Gillum, N. (2018). White fathers and their black-white biracial sons.

Marriage & Family Review, 54(4), 374-92.

Edwards, R. (2017). Partnered fathers bringing up their mixed-/multi-race children: An

exploratory comparison of racial projects in Britain and New Zealand. Identities, 24(2),

177-97.

Ellinghaus, K. (2006). Taking assimilation to heart: Marriages of white women and indigenous

men in the United States and Australia, 1887-1937. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Elliott, J. H. (2006). Empires of the Atlantic world: Britain and Spain in America, 1492-1830.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fahrmeir, Andreas. (2007). Citizenship: The rise and fall of a modern concept. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Fehrenbach, H. (2005). Race after Hitler: Black occupation children in postwar Germany and

America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Flüchter, A. (2014). Trans-ethnic unions in early modern travel literature. In D. M. Luebke and &

M. Lindemann (Eds). Mixed matches: Transgressive unions in Germany from the

Reformation to the Enlightenment (pp. 273-302). Oxford: Berghahn.

Fogarty, R. S. (2009). Race and sex, fear and loathing in France during the Great War. In D. Herzog

(Ed.), Brutality and desire: War and sexuality in Europe’s twentieth century (pp. 59-90).

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Freeman, C. (2011). Making and faking kinship: Marriage and labor migration between China

and South Korea. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

French, K. L. (2013). Genders and material culture. In J. M. Bennett & R. M. Karras (Eds.), The

Oxford handbook of women and gender in Medieval Europe (pp. 197-212). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Fresnoza-Flot, A., & Ricordeau, G. (2017). International marriages and marital citizenship:

Southeast Asian women on the move. London: Routledge.

Fu, V. K., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2011). Broken boundaries or broken marriages? Racial

intermarriage and divorce in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 92(4), 1096-117.

Ghosh, D. (2006). Sex and the family in colonial India: The making of empire. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Goebel, M. & Foote, N. (Eds.). (2014). Immigration and National Identities in Latin America.

Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Goebel, M. (2019). Spokesmen, spies, and spouses: Anticolonialism, surveillance, and intimacy

in interwar France. The Journal of Modern History, 91(2), 380-414.

Goody, J. (1983). The development of the family and marriage in Europe. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Goody, J. (1990). The Oriental, the ancient, and the primitive: Systems of marriage and the

family in the pre-industrial societies of Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Gordon, S. B. (2002). The Mormon question: Polygamy and constitutional conflict in nineteenth-

century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Groes, C., & Fernandez, N. T. (2018). Intimate mobilities: Sexual economies, marriage and

migration in a disparate world. New York: Berghahn Books.

Hagemann, K., & Michel, S. (Eds.). (2014). Gender and the long postwar: The United States and

the two Germanys, 1945-1989. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Harsch, D. (2007). Revenge of the domestic: Women, the family, and communism in the German

Democratic Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hodes, M. E. (1997). White women, black men: Illicit sex in the nineteenth-century South. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Hohman, K. (2002). The colors of love: The black person’s guide to interracial relationships.

Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.

Höhn, M. (2002). GIs and Fräuleins: The German-American encounter in 1950s West Germany.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Hu, Y. (2016). Chinese-British Intermarriage: Disentangling gender and ethnicity. Houndmills:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Human Rights Watch, & Immigration Equality. (2006). Family, unvalued: Discrimination, denial,

and the fate of binational same-sex Couples under U.S. Law. New York: Human Rights

Watch: Immigration Equality.

Hyam, R. (1986). Concubinage and the colonial service: The Crewe Circular (1909). The Journal

of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 14(3), 170-86.

Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of

Sociology, 24, 395-421.

Kalmijn, M., de Graaf, P. M., & Janssen, J. P. G. (2005). Intermarriage and the risk of divorce in

the Netherlands: The effects of differences in religion and in nationality, 1974–94.

Population Studies, 59(1), 71-85.

Kaplan, M. A. (1991). The making of the Jewish middle class: Women, family, and identity in

Imperial Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Karras, R. M. (2012). Unmarriages: Women, men, and sexual unions in the Middle Ages.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kennedy, R. (2003). Interracial intimacies: Sex, marriage, identity, and adoption. New York:

Pantheon.

Kertzer, D. I., & Barbagli, M. (2001). Family Life in Early Modern Times, 1500-1789. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Kertzer, D. I., & Barbagli, M. (2002). Family Life in the Long Nineteenth Century, 1789-1913.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kertzer, D. I., & Barbagli, M. (2003). Family Life in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Kevles, D. J. (1995). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kilkey, M., & Palenga-Möllenbeck, E. (2016). Family life in an age of migration and mobility:

Global perspectives through the life course. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kok, J. (2010). The family factor in migration decisions. In J. Lucassen, L. Lucassen, & P.

Manning (Eds.), Migration History in World History: Multidisciplinary Approaches (pp.

215-50). Leiden: Brill.

Kouritzin, S. G. (2016). Mothering across colour lines: Decisions and dilemmas of white birth

mothers of mixed-race children. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,

37(8), 735-47.

Kuper, A. (2009). Incest & influence: The private life of bourgeois England. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review

of Sociology, 28, 167-95.

Livesay, D. (2018). Children of uncertain fortune: Mixed-race Jamaicans in Britain and the

Atlantic family, 1733-1833. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Loveman, M. (2014). National colors: Racial classification and the state in Latin America.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lowenstein, S. M. (2006). Reflections on statistics: Hopes and fears about changes in the

German-Jewish family, 1815-1939. Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 51, 51-59.

Lucassen, L. (2018). Peeling an onion: The “refugee crisis” from a historical perspective. Ethnic

and Racial Studies, 41(3), 383-410.

Lukowski, J. (2003). The European nobility in the eighteenth century. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Mack, M. A. (2017). Sexagon: Muslims, France, and the Sexualization of National Culture. New

York: Fordham University Press.

Messinger, I. (2012). Historischer Streifzug zum Rechtskonstrukt “Scheinehe.” In A. Pilgram et

al., Einheitliches Recht für die Vielfalt der Kulturen? (pp. 355-75). Berlin: LIT Verlag.

Meyer, M. A., Brenner, M., Breuer, M., Graetz, M., Jersch-Wenzel, S., Lowenstein, S. M., ….

Mendes-Flor, P. (Eds.). (1996-2000). Deutsch-Jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit

[German-Jewish History in the Modern Period] (Vols. 1–4). Munich: C. H. Beck.

Mahmoody, B., & Hoffer, W. (1988). Not without my daughter. London: Bantam.

Marchand, S. L. (2009). German orientalism in the age of empire: Religion, race, and scholarship.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mata, M. E. (2007). Interracial marriage in the last Portuguese colonial empire. E-Journal of

Portuguese History, 5(1).

May, E. T. (1988). Homeward bound: American families in the cold war era. New York: Basic

Books.

Maynes, M. J., & A. B. Waltner (2012). The family: A world history. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Mbogoni, L. E. Y. (2018). Miscegenation, identity and status in colonial Africa: Intimate colonial

encounters. London: Routledge.

McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender and sexuality in the colonial contest.

London: Routledge.

McDougall, S & Pearsall, S.M.S. (Eds.) (2017). Marriage’s global past. Special issue of Gender

& History, 29(3).

McDougall, S. (2013). The Making of Marriage in Medieval France. Journal of Family History,

38(2), 103–121.

McGrath, A. (2015). Illicit love: Interracial sex and marriage in the United States and Australia.

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

McKeown, A. (2004). Global Migration, 1846-1940. Journal of World History, 15(2), 155-189.

Meyerowitz, J. (2009). Transnational sex and U. S. history. The American Historical Review,

114(5), 1273-86.

Meyerowitz, J. (Ed.). (1994). Not June Cleaver: Women and gender in postwar America, 1945-

1960. Phliadelphia: Temple University Press.

Moch, L. P. (2007). Connecting migration and world history: Demographic patterns, family

systems, and gender. International Review of Social History, 52(1), 97-104

Molho, A. (1994). Marriage alliance in late medieval Florence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Moses, J. (Ed.) (2017). Marriage, law, and modernity: global histories. London: Bloomsbury.

Mouton, M. (2007). From nurturing the nation to purifying the Volk: Weimar and Nazi family

policy, 1918-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moulton, A. D. (2015). The fight for interracial marriage rights in antebellum Massachusetts.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mushaben, J. M. (2008). The changing faces of citizenship: Integration and mobilization among

ethnic minorities in Germany. New York: Berghahn Books.

Neveu Kringelbach, H. (2013). “Mixed marriage,” citizenship and the policing of intimacy in

contemporary France. Working paper no.77, International Migration Institute, University

of Oxford.

Neveu Kringelbach, H. (2016). The paradox of parallel lives: Immigration policy and transnational

polygyny between Senegal and France. In J. Cole & C. Groes (Eds.), Affective circuits:

African migrations to Europe and the pursuit of social regeneration (pp. 146-68). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Newbeck, P. (2004). Virginia hasn’t always been for lovers: Interracial marriage bans and the

case of Richard and Mildred Loving. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Osterhammel, J., & Petersson, N. P. (2005). Globalization: A short history. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Osterhammel, J. (2014). The transformation of the world: A global history of the nineteenth

century. (P. Camiller, Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Partridge, D. J. (2012). Hypersexuality and headscarves: Race, sex, and citizenship in the new

Germany. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Pascoe, P. (2009). What comes naturally: Miscegenation law and the making of race in America.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peabody, S. (2017). Madeleine’s children: Family, freedom, secrets, and lies in France’s Indian

Ocean colonies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pellander, S. (2014). “An acceptable marriage”: Marriage migration and moral gatekeeping in

Finland. Journal of Family Issues 35(1), 1-18.

Pels, P., & O. Salemink. (1999). Colonial subjects: Essays on the practical history of

anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Penny, H. G., & Bunzl, M. (Eds.). (2003). Worldly provincialism: German anthropology in the

age of empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Pérez, E. (2018). Colonial intimacies: Interethnic kinship, sexuality, and marriage in southern

California, 1769-1885. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Petsonk, J., & Remsen, J. (1988). The intermarriage handbook: A guide for Jews & Christians.

New York: Arbor House.

Ray, C. E. (2015). Crossing the color line: Race, sex, and the contested politics of colonialism in

Ghana. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Reynolds, H. (2005). Nowhere people. Camberwell: Penguin.

Robbins, J. (2004). Becoming sinners: Christianity and moral torment in a Papua New Guinea

society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Romano, R. C. (2003). Race mixing: Black-white marriage in postwar America. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Saada, E. (2012). Empire’s children: Race, filiation, and citizenship in the French colonies. (A.

Goldhammer, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sabean, D. W., Teuscher, S. & Mathieu, J. (2007). Kinship in Europe: Approaches to long-term

development (1300-1900). Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Sabean, D. W. (1998). Kinship in Neckarhausen, 1700-1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Sahukhan, F. (2009). Dating the ethnic man: Strategies for success. Bloomington, Indiana:

Trafford Press.

Salesa, D. I. (2011). Racial crossings: Race, intermarriage, and the Victorian British empire.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saller, R. P. (1994). Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman family. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Savage, G. (2008). More than one Mrs. Mir Anwaruddin: Islamic divorce and Christian marriage

in early twentieth-century London. Journal of British Studies, 47(2), 348-74.

Schrover, M. (2009). Family in Dutch migration policy 1945–2005. The History of the Family,

14(2), 191-202.

Schrover, M., & Moloney, D. M. (2013). Gender, migration and categorisation: Making

distinctions between migrants in western countries, 1945-2010. Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press.

Schultz, A. P. K. E. (1908; 1977). Race or Mongrel. New York: Arno Press.

Scott, J. W. (2018). Sex and secularism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shorter, E. (1976). The making of the modern family. London: Collins.

Shumway, J. M. (2001). “The purity of my blood cannot put food on my table”: Changing attitudes

towards interracial marriage in nineteenth-century Buenos Aires. Americas, 58(2), 201-20.

Sims, J. M. (2013). Beyond the stereotype of the “Thai-bride”: Visibility, invisibility and

community. In K. Charsley (Ed.), Transnational marriage: New perspectives from Europe

and beyond (pp. 161-74). London: Routledge.

Smith, E., & Hattery, A. (2009). Interracial intimacies: An examination of powerful men and their

relationships across the color line. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Smith, S., Maas, I., & van Tubergen, F. (2012). Irreconcilable differences? Ethnic intermarriage

and divorce in the Netherlands, 1995–2008. Social Science Research, 41(5), 1126-37.

Song, M. (2009). Is intermarriage a good indicator of integration?. Journal of Ethnic and

Migration Studies, 35(2), 331-48.

Song, M. (2010). What happens after segmented assimilation? An exploration of intermarriage

and “mixed race” young people in Britain. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1194-213.

Stoler, A. L. (2002). Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Race and the intimate in colonial

rule. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Stoltzfus, N. (1996). Resistance of the heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse protest in Nazi

Germany. New York: W.W. Norton.

Strobel, M. (1991). European women and the second British empire. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Tabili, L. (2005). Outsiders in the land of their birth: Exogamy, citizenship, and identity in war

and peace. Journal of British Studies, 44(4), 796-815.

Tabili, L. (2005). Empire is the enemy of love: Edith Noor’s progress and other stories. Gender &

History, 17(1), 5-28.

Tilley, H., & Gordon, R. J. (2007). Ordering Africa: Anthropology, European imperialism and the

politics of knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Torpey, J. (2000). The invention of the passport: Surveillance, citizenship and the state.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Utomo, A. J. (2019). Love in the melting pot: Ethnic intermarriage in Jakarta. Journal of Ethnic

and Migration Studies (online first-view), 1-18. van Rahden, T. (2008) Jews and other Germans: Civil society, religious diversity, and urban

politics in Breslau, 1860-1925. (M. Brainard, Trans.). Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin Press.

Waldis, B., & Byron, R. (2006). Migration and marriage: Heterogamy and homogamy in a

changing world. Zuirich: LIT.

Wallenstein, P. (2002). Tell the court I love my wife: Race, marriage, and law: An American

history. New York: Palagrave.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. (G. Roth, C.

Wittich, & E. Fischoff., Eds.). 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press.

White, O. (1999). Children of the French empire: Miscegenation and colonial society in French

West Africa, 1895-1960. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wiesner-Hanks, M. E. (2011). Crossing borders in transnational gender history. Journal of Global

History, 6(3), 357-79.

Wildenthal, L. (2001). German women for empire, 1884-1945. Durham, NC: Duke University

Press.

Williams, L. (2010). Global marriage: Cross-border marriage and marriage migration in global

context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Willis, Clair. (2017). Lovers and strangers: An immigrant history of post-war Britain. London:

Penguin.

Woesthoff, J. (2013). “When I marry a Mohammedan”: Migration and the challenges of interethnic

marriages in post-war Germany. Contemporary European History, 22(2), 199-231.

Woesthoff, J. (2017). Equality before the law? The intermarriage debate in post-Nazi Germany. In

J. Moses (Ed.), Marriage, law and modernity: Global histories (pp. 204-21). London:

Bloomsbury.

Wolf, A. P., & Durham, W. H. (Eds.) (2004). Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state

of knowledge at the turn of the century. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Wray, H. (2015). The “pure” relationship, sham marriages, and immigration control. In J. Miles,

P. Mody, R. Probert (Eds.), Marriage rites and rights (pp. 141-166). Oxford: Hart

Publishing.

Yang, W.-S., & Chia-Wen Lu, M. (Eds.) (2010). Asian cross-border marriage migration:

Demographic patterns and social issues. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Zug, M. A. (2016). Buying a bride: An engaging history of mail-order matches. New York: New

York University Press.

 Forthcoming in The History of the Family (2019) 24, no. 3. Online first-view version available in July 2019. Please do not cite or circulate this version without author’s permission.

 The research in this article has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions – Individual Fellowships under grant agreement No 707072 (MARDIV), the German Academic Exchange Service’s

Research Stay Scheme and the Arts and Humanities Research Council UK’s Early Career

Fellowship scheme (No. J00751X/1). i As shown in the Google Ngram below, this neologism has taken off since the mid-1980s (although it came into occasional usage in the 1920s) to denote marriages involving partners of two different nationalities. On the ground, as the articles in this issue show, nationality has rarely been straightforward, with individuals often having more than two passports – or none at all.

Source:

&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbinational%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2C binational%3B%2Cc0> (accessed 2 May 2019). ii Even if this “first age” actually came on the heels of earlier colonial encounters and global movements in people and goods. iii These calls did not, of course, go without resistance and reinterpretation (see for example:

Meyerowitz, 1994). iv An exception, with some limitations, however: Dumănescu, Mârza, and Eppel, 2014. v The social-scientific work in this area, in turn, draws on an established body of primarily sociological scholarship on intermarriage, especially as related to questions of integration in the

U.S. For example: Drachsler, 1920, chs. 4-5. An overview on this scholarship: Cretser and Leon,

1982. Early European sociologists also engaged with questions about intermarriage and group formation. For example, Max Weber argued that intermarriage was more likely when individuals from different groups shared common customs ([1920] Weber, 1978, 320). vi A related recent strand of literature moves from analyzing these relationships to offering guidance to people involved in interracial or interreligious unions, for example, in dealing with discrimination and raising children. Some of this is scholarly in nature, and some has been published by religious organizations or individuals personally involved in an interreligious or interracial relationship (see, for example, Petsonk and Remsen, 1988; Hohman, 2002; Sahukhan,

2009) vii In 2018 alone, 580,800 first-time asylum seekers applied to immigration into EU member states, with Germany, France and Greece as the main countries of destination. See https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics (accessed 1 May

2019). Germany saw the entry of 890,000 migrants in 2015, followed by several hundred thousand more in subsequent years. See https://www.dw.com/en/two-years-since-germany-opened-its- borders-to-refugees-a-chronology/a-40327634 (accessed 1 May 2019). viii See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35231046 (accessed 1 May 2019). ix As Leo Lucassen has recently argued for the European context, “The entry into force of the [EU]

Convention on Controls on Persons Crossing External Frontiers on 1 November 1993 … required people from almost all countries in Asia and Africa to apply for a visa prior to leaving their country,” an ever less likely possibility (Lucassen, 2018, 391). x It is important to bear in mind that concerns about miscegenation and women in the colonies also extended to the protection of black women from white men, even if these worries have been cited less frequently in historiography (see Mbogoni, 2018).

xi Of course, however, various kinds of exogamy – including “social endogamy” – marrying within a closed network of related social groups – existed within Europe before the Church reforms (for example, on this practice in ancient Rome, see Corbier, 1991, 183; Saller, 1994, 71-2). xii It is important to note, however, the complexity – over time and across the globe – of marital patterns such as endogamy and exogamy – and related taboos about incest, which sometimes disappear from view in early anthropological accounts of the family and historical studies inspired by them that instead suggest a kind of modernization theory of the family, from “primitive” endogamy based on in-marriage to “modern” exogamy based on intermarriage between individuals from different groups (on these issues, see Wolf & Durham, 2004).